Ubanekwo v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 631

Date: 20250404

Docket: IMM-18650-24

Citation: 2025 FC 631

Ottawa, Ontario, April 4, 2025

PRESENT: Madam Justice Sadrehashemi

JUDGMENT AND REASONS

(Simplified Procedure-Study Permit Pilot Project)

[1] The Applicant, Chichi Eve Ubanekwo, applied to study in Canada in the Health Systems Management program at Fanshawe College. An officer at Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (the “Officer”) refused her application because of concerns with Ms. Ubanekwo’s study plan. Ms. Ubanekwo challenges the refusal on judicial review.

[2] This case is dealt with in writing, on consent of the parties, as part of the Court’s Study Permit Pilot project. I granted leave but I am dismissing the judicial review.

[3] The requirement that an officer be satisfied that a person applying to study in Canada will not overstay the period authorized for their stay is set out in subsections 11(1) and 20(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, SC 2001, c 27 [IRPA] and in paragraph 216(1)(b) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations, SOR/2002-227 [IRPR].

[4] The Officer refused the application because of concerns with Ms. Ubanekwo’s study plan. The Officer considered that while Ms. Ubanekwo had a degree in microbiology, she had spent the last ten years working in a different field and there was no explanation provided for why she was changing fields and how this program of study would benefit her career progression. The Officer noted that the study plan was vague.

[5] Ms. Ubanekwo argues that the program of study at Fanshawe College was a “logical transition aimed bridging her business management skills with healthcare systems to contribute to the healthcare system”. The problem with this argument is that it is not how the study plan was described in the application before the Officer. There was no clear explanation for the desire to change career paths.

[6] Ultimately, Ms. Ubanekwo’s arguments on judicial review have not raised any sufficiently serious shortcoming with the Officer’s reasons to warrant the Court’s intervention. Instead, the arguments amount to asking the Court to reweigh the evidence which is not the Court’s role on judicial review (Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65 at paragraph 125).

JUDGMENT in IMM-18650-24

THIS COURT’S JUDGMENT is that:

1. Leave to bring the application for judicial review is granted.

2. The application for judicial review is dismissed.

3. There is no question of general importance for certification.

"Lobat Sadrehashemi"

FEDERAL COURT

SOLICITORS OF RECORD

Submissions on Study Permit Perfected Leave application considered at Ottawa, ontario pursuant to section 72 of the immigration and refugee protection act

WRITTEN PREPRESENTATIONS BY:

SOLICITORS OF RECORD: